Saturday, April 15, 2017

The values and vision of an American Democrat

Richard Fochtmann is a Democrat in the American state of Maine. He ran as a state senate candidate last year and lost. In the video below he is addressing an audience of Democrats at a Maine "values and vision" conference. Clearly, the Democrats are not trying to appeal to white male voters anymore.

28 comments:

The speaker is evil. He celebrates the self inflicted deaths of white men with the word "great" which is an expression of hatred towards a specific demographic and an incitement to kill or genocide this demographic. However, what do white men do about this? It looks as though they sit and clap and cheer and thus encourage the evil sentiment. They should group together and start a law suit against him for hate speech, as would any other demographic.

Cecil Henry, the Raphael Lemkin definition of genocide you linked to is very good. The live link for readers is here. Some people think that genocide is the actual slaughter of one nation of people, but the person who came up with the term meant it to describe the extinguishing of the national life of any group of people - and by this definition, the Western peoples are very definitely suffering under a process of genocide.

However, what do white men do about this? It looks as though they sit and clap and cheer and thus encourage the evil sentiment.

You're misunderstanding completely. This is not white men applauding the genocide of the white race. This is the elites applauding the genocide of rural whites and the white working class. Race is irrelevant here. This is pure class hatred.

These white Democrats do not identify as white people. They identify as elites. As far as they're concerned working class whites and rural whites might as well be a different species. And working class whites and rural whites are no longer necessary. There are still menial jobs to be done but it's cheaper and less troublesome to use Mexicans or other Third Worlders for those jobs. Since working class and rural whites are no longer necessary it would obviously be better from the point of view of the elites if such people ceased to exist. If they could be persuaded to kill themselves it would be even better.

Race is not what matters to the elites. The elites are mostly white or Jewish but with quite a few East Asians and a sprinkling of South Asians. They have no racial identity - they simply identify as elites. And they despise non-elites because they're non-elites, regardless of race.

What the elites are hoping is that whites adopt identity politics. That way they can isolate the troublesome working class whites, brand them as neo-nazis and destroy them.

Race does matter to the elites. It's the most important matter to Jews and Asians who assiduously maintain their racial identity. The democrat whites are not elites. They are lower class people who have been plucked from poverty (Bill Clinton) and socially dysfunctional backgrounds (Obama) and obscurity in order to serve the real elites. They are mostly opportunists who will sell out their people for money.

The real social elites i.e. People with pedigree are being marginalised and displaced by Jews, Asians and sociopathic whites who are useful to the elites as they are prepared to sell out their own people. Once they have served their purpose, they too will be killed.

I don't think elites care much about what non-liberal whites believe or don't believe. What they are afraid of is the very real potential of race-conscious, patriarchal, armed whites to organize on principle and, if necessary, violence. Doubtless they see the Trump election as a major red flag in this regard.

People who advocate the destruction of whites seem like someone poking a tiger until it attacks, thereby justifying shooting it. That such views are aired in public today is a dark sign but it also allows some insight into the increasingly dissonant minds that inhabit the intellectual circles of the Left.

Race does matter to the elites. It's the most important matter to Jews and Asians who assiduously maintain their racial identity.

Elites Jews and Asians don't care about their own religions, their own traditions, their own culture. They're overwhelmingly secular. They out-marry at very high rates. Their culture is the elite culture. They care about power and money.

The only Jews who really care about Jewish racial identity are the Orthodox Jews. And they are not part of the elite, in fact they're despised by the elite secular Jews.

As far as the elites are concerned racial identity politics is for the rubes.

I'm not saying it isn't crucially important to defend our culture. The survival of our culture is a life-or-death matter for us. But it's also important to realise that for the elites the culture war is just a strategy, it's not an end in itself. For the elites it's a class war and the objective is to ensure that the elites have an absolute monopoly on power, a monopoly that is unchallengeable.

If we fall for the identity politics con we will fail because we will not be fighting the real enemy. It's not blacks or Asians or Muslims or Jews who are the enemy. The enemy is the elites, both the inner circle of globalist billionaires and the Outer Party of liberal globalist storm troopers.

People who advocate the destruction of whites seem like someone poking a tiger until it attacks, thereby justifying shooting it.

I think that's exactly the result they're aiming for. Push working class and rural whites into adopting identity politics. It then becomes child's play to demonise those whites as evil racist nazis. Those working class and rural whites can then be utterly destroyed.

It's a trap and it seems like a lot of whites intend to walk right into it.

If whites try to play identity politics they lose, inevitably, because Hitler. This cannot be changed. Once you get isolated and identified as a nazi you're finished. No-one will defend you. It's game over.

We have to avoid walking into the trap. Instead of doing what the elites want, which is to play the race card, we should play the class card. The fact that your enemy wants you to do something is a good enough reason not to do it, and the elites are very very keen to see us try to play the white identity card.

Can they continue to have it both ways? Keen to see us play the white identity card, yet seemingly also keen for Western peoples to continue sacrificing racial consciousness to a vacuous egalitarianism? Liberals want to be white *and* liberal but they don't realize it.

Race is a problem when people focus on it too much or ignore or deny it. Elites in this case seem to gain energy from the friction of this polarity and they are happy to add fuel. They probably have no desire to keep public thought in a sensible middle area.

Why the Boomers? I hear this often - blaming "the boomers" - but I don't often hear convincing evidence. I'm quintessential boomer, born in 1948. I see clearly and personally, the role that my mother and father played. Mom was leading edge feminism... Dad was divorced and bewildered by 1960.

I (Buck), try again to defend most boomers in this Thinkinghousewife entry in 2013:

Why the Boomers? I hear this often - blaming "the boomers" - but I don't often hear convincing evidence. I'm quintessential boomer, born in 1948. I see clearly and personally, the role that my mother and father played.

The Blame the Boomers thing comes partly from a total misunderstanding of the historical perspective. A lot of younger people assume that the disastrous social experiments of the 60s were begun by the Boomers. They forget that the Boomers were simply too young to exert any actual influence at that time.

I'm a Boomer. At the end of the 1960s I was twelve years old. How much influence do you think I had on the social and political changes of the 60s? The first election in which I was eligible to vote was in 1977. By the time I was in any position to have even the smallest influence on anything the catastrophic social changes of that era had already happened.

And look at the politicians who made the fatal decisions that began the disintegration of our culture - not one of those politicians was a Baby Boomer. LBJ, born 1908. Ted Kennedy, born 1932. Harold Wilson, born 1916. Gough Whitlam, born 1916. Malcolm Fraser, born 1930.

I didn't blame anyone, I said I don't understand boomers. However, I do get tired of hearing from boomers who seem completely disconnected from their children and grandchildren and can only reply to any criticism of the current regime (which is managed by boomers - you can't deny that) with "work harder, pull yourself by the bootstraps like I did." This is where a lot of animosity comes from. There is no sense of sympathy for the plight of their kin or any realisation that the world they grew up in no longer exists, and every day that workd becomes more and more hostile to the interests of white people.

Besides all this, this Democrat is supposedly a boomer (on the upper limit)

There is no sense of sympathy for the plight of their kin or any realisation that the world they grew up in no longer exists,

The Boomers I know absolutely detest the current regime.

I don't think any of us, whether we're Boomers or non-Boomers, really understand just how the society we once had has been taken away from us. We know that something terrible has happened, but we have no real idea what we can do about it. There's a sense of powerlessness which makes us feel alienated and disconnected.

I don't think it's a generational thing.

I have never heard a single member of the Silent Generation express any regret or remorse for the damage they did to society. I think it's just human nature that we prefer to blame somebody else.

There is no longer any connection between generations. The collapse of the family isolated each generation into separate units; the grandparents in old peoples' homes, neglected by their children, the parents pursuing their own interests neglecting both their own parents and their own children, their children often neglected and frequently abused. No one bears any responsibility for anything or anyone and individualism is prime.

The family as social institution exists to link past generations with the future in a single unchangeable culture and tradition. When reduced to a personal relationship, the links are broken and tradition cannot be sustained. The Silent Generation don't have strong connections with their descendants and the ones who are still alive are obsessed with themselves, indifferent to the damage they brought on society.

There is no longer any connection between generations. The collapse of the family isolated each generation into separate units; the grandparents in old peoples' homes, neglected by their children, the parents pursuing their own interests neglecting both their own parents and their own children, their children often neglected and frequently abused. No one bears any responsibility for anything or anyone and individualism is prime.

Agreed.

There's a temptation to blame much of this on "cultural marxism" which is true enough but it's only a partial explanation. It has to be admitted that classical liberalism and capitalism both tend to create atomised societies. Socialism and capitalism are equally destructive of the ties that are needed to maintain a civilised functional society.

Jimmy, I get it. You just left this hanging: "Boomers... I don't understand them." Then, you begin again with "however...". I get what it looks like. We did nothing to stop modern liberalism and the destruction of our society and culture. None of us have. Boomers did and are doing no less than any generation has or is. Modern liberalism is in our DNA. Each successive generation tolerates more, not less.The neighborhood that I grew up in, I often say, was the best place in 1950s America to grow up in. But I was child. Just like society, that perfect, safe neighborhood of tidy row houses filled with kids, now looks like hell. The forced diversity of smells, sounds, and conditions were legislated as a "state interest" by the Greatest Guilt Generation. It was soon abandoned in a flight to the suburbs. That's what we do now, we find creative, yet dysfunctional, routes of escape. We all know what's wrong. But, unlike the left, we can not and will not join as a force against it. We chronicle it and analyze it, and, too often, rant against it and each other, as we increasingly and inevitably, precisely define OUR differences. We splinter and separate into intellectual camps, where differences grow bitter and rise above what began as agreement. Or, we avoid what we must confront. You can track this history on the web. The left is made up of strangers willing (and longing) to meet at the drop of a hat in the street or on the steps at city hall. They'll do whatever is asked of them by the establishment apparatchiks. We are anti-establishment. We live by secret example and by the word. We want no part of the machinery that we despise. Our societies are not going to be given back to us.

We did nothing to stop modern liberalism and the destruction of our society and culture. None of us have. Boomers did and are doing no less than any generation has or is. Modern liberalism is in our DNA. Each successive generation tolerates more, not less.

It hasn't been a sudden disaster. It hasn't been the result of a sudden revolution. It's been a slow unfolding of catastrophe over the course of more than two hundred years since the "Enlightenment" began the process.

Buck oThe neighborhood I grew up in during the 1970s was homogenous but it was not full of children. It was geriatric. Ideal in many ways but children were scarce. I loved my elderly neighbors but still...

Yes we all share the blame but the Boomers chose to have two or fewer children in mass numbers. Had they simply procreated naturally, we would be so far behind.

Are the psycho-social-cultural-civilizational disorders we call modern liberalism caused by too few Boomer children? What would cause a historical "boom" population to intentionally and so dramatically shrink their own families? Were we the first or only generation to think about it, to have an actual plan?

What caused the collapse of honest faith? Science (Darwin, Einstein) and Hitler? When I was age ten, I could count on no one to tolerate what we all now tolerate every day; that we have institutionalized and codified into law. During this Boomers lifetime, unimaginable perversions are normalized, celebrated and even protected for being special. Whiteness is now deemed a defect worthy of ridicule and censure. Fatherhood is degraded and marginalized. Motherhood is almost another "ism". Why so much so fast so disordered? Is whiteness actually proving to be a genetic defect? Is the multicultural/diversity paradigm proving that we're pretenders?

Half a century ago our society seemed healthy but it was an illusion. We had ceased to believe in anything except materialism. Hedonism and consumerism were the new gods. Our elites had already become cynical, dishonest and vicious. They believed in nothing but power and money.

Ordinary people still believed in decency and hard work and loyalty but there was no foundation to these beliefs. They were just habits.

When we were told that we had to abandon those beliefs and adopt new ones we did so because we didn't really care very much. It didn't seem important.

You also need to remember that with movies, TV, cable TV, the internet, etc, cultural poison spreads a lot faster than it used to. We can destroy a culture much more quickly and much more efficiently than in the old days.